Case Summaries – Page 357 – Electronic Discovery Law

Williams, Cohen & Gray, Inc. v. CPS Group, Inc., 2006 WL 3316783 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant objected to providing hard copies of payment data and offered instead to make its database available to plaintiff in New York, court questioned prudence of offer and ordered production to take place in Houston, adding that parties should attempt to arrange for materials to be produced electronically and directing them to confer on method of production

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Raytheon Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 2006 WL 2570545 (D. Kan. Sept. 5, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied as overly broad plaintiff’s request that government identify and produce all investigations and electronic databases concerning contamination at World War II Army Air Force bases, and instead ordered government to, at plaintiff’s indicated preference, either provide an index to the electronic databases or provide a knowledgeable member of its staff to assist plaintiff in its review of the databases

Nature of Case: CERCLA litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Databases

Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 2006 WL 335846 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Although court decided it could not hold either party in contempt, it advised that parties? exchange of emails and written correspondence did not satisfy meet and confer requirement contained in court’s earlier Case Management Order; court understood the phrase to mean “a conference in which opposing parties actually talk to one another”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Wedding & Event Videographers Ass’n Int’l, Inc. v. Videoccasion, Inc., 2006 WL 821809 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defense counsel withdrew defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s request to inspect, at its expense, defendants’ computers, court denied as moot plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Inspection of Defendants’ Computers, Other Electric Equipment and Electronic Storage Devices and ordered the parties to include a stipulated plan for electronic discovery in their Case Management Report

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, deceptive and unfair business practice, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Defendants’ computers

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Does 1-4, 2006 WL 1343597 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Finding good cause and no First Amendment prohibition, court granted plaintiffs? motion for leave to take immediate discovery and serve Rule 45 subpoena upon ISP to obtain names and contact information for Doe Defendants; ISP to serve copy of subpoena and court?s order upon relevant subscribers and subscribers would have 15 days to file any objections; if no objections filed, ISP would have 10 days to produce each subscriber’s name, address, telephone number, email address, and Media Access Control (?MAC?) addresses

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers

India Brewing, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 237 F.R.D. 190 (E.D. Wis. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Plaintiff not entitled to production of defendant’s document retention policy and information regarding computer systems because such information was unnecessary and irrelevant to claims and issues in litigation; court further ruled that defendant’s production in hard copy format satisfied its obligations under the rules: “To the extent that the documents IBI sought in its requests are kept in hard copy in the usual course of business, IBI is not entitled to any other format. To the extent that those documents kept in electronic form have been printed out and organized and labeled to correspond with the document request, again IBI is not entitled to any other format.”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: Computer system information; document retention policy; electronic records

Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2006 WL 2318803 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel plaintiff to produce a witness for further deposition under FRCP 30(b)(6), stating that, although defendant “may have some basis for complaining about the timing and manner in which the spreadsheet was produced,” defendant did not demonstrate that additional testimony was necessary regarding the spreadsheet, or that there was any information that was more readily obtainable from a live witness than from the spreadsheet which had been produced in native format

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Excel spreadsheet

Malletier v. Dooney & Burke, Inc., 2006 WL 2109472 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought a fuller production of email communications from the servers of a wide variety of DB personnel, and DB represented that it searched all pertinent email files and had no other responsive emails, court ruled: “Under these circumstances, the only avenue open to [plaintiff] on this matter is to pursue the question of the scope of e-mail use and retention through depositions.”

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Ace Am. Reinsurance Co., 2006 WL 3771090 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Given the tremendous volume of information accumulated in claims database and defendant’s claimed inability to segregate claims based on various attributes, court ordered parties to develop sampling protocol to obtain examples of claims files that involved issue similar to that in the litigation

Nature of Case: Reinsurance dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Claims database

Angelotti v. Roth, 2006 WL 3666849 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied request for sanctions or adverse inference instruction based on absence of video footage of plaintiff after arrest since there was no evidence of bad faith and video security system had experienced a number of unexplained problems

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged use of excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Catagory:Case Summaries